Viva Macau return to SYD?
 

Hey Everyone!


Just currently in my hotel room watching the aircraft.

At Approx 3:15pm Viva Macau "Jackpot 9600" departed from SYD on runway 34R
but returned at around 4:00pm again and returned to the bay.

No emergency services attended the 767 taxi'ing to the bay but did have to hold for around 10 minutes before entering.

If anyone has any info that would be great!

Cheers
Matt

I was listening to ground frequency when they started taxiing in to
the bay, They stopped on the taxiway because at bay53 they had no ground power so they had to get a machine to supply ground power
to the aircraft at the gate.

As for the turn around back to sydney reason i heard the Pilot on ATC saying something to do with a having only 1 Generator and the eletrical systems, but maybe AJ or someone who has knowledge
about the 767 could say more.
and i believe Jackpot 9600 departed on 34L :p

Thanks Blake! and apologies it was RWY 34L

A bit of guessing here. I suspect the APU was broken from the statement that Bay 53 had no power and wouldn't do.

So, if a 767 takes off from SYD then one of the generators on the engine breaks that would mean you are down to one generator and you can't fly more than one hour from a suitable airport.
If the APU was working he would have started that and used the generator on the APU and had two sources of power.
Before he leaves SYD he will have to get the APU fixed and/or the generator on the engine fixed, or what ever caused the problem.:D

B-MAY left this morning around 9:40 am.

per another board:-

Saw on the news yesterday Viva Macau had to cancel two flights (one to Australia and one to Vietnam) because they could not pay for the fuel...

It's on the Hong Kong news because Hong Kong travel agents use them for cheap flights.

Anytime you can't pay for fuel it's very bad sign.

In the current edition of Aus Aviatin, there is quite a lengthy story on Viva Macau and the CEO/MD is very confident, saying thier MEL loads are quite good. Maybe the truth is somewhere between those extremes.

I'm always a bit suspicous when the "can't pay for fuel" rumours start, as these seem to be a popular choice when people at rival airlines (or elsewhere) want to start some FUD floating around.

Obviously in this situation an aircraft did an air return and was subsequently out of position. Not being able to pay for fuel was obviously not the cause of the air return. So if someone somewhere (even supposing it was in fact suggested in the HK media) is linking any cancellations surrouding this to the ability to pay for fuel, well, smells like FUD.

At the end of the day, "not being able to pay for fuel" obviously doesn't connect to an aircraft in flight returning to the port of origin.